This is first rent appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 6-1-1992, passed by learned IV-Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East, in Rent Case No.503 of 1988, under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), by which the ejectment application filed by the respondent under section 15 of the Ordinance was allowed and the respondent was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shop within 60 days from the date of the order.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant is tenant of the respondent in Shop No.4, Plot Nos.Z-66 and 67, Commercial Area, Block 3, Behar Muslim Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, at the rate of Rs.133 per month. The aforesaid plot consists of three houses and four shops and all the shops are occupied by the tenants. The appellant was tenant in the premises since June 1970, prior to the purchase of the property by the husband of the respondent. The case of the respondent was that her elder son, namely Kamran is jobless and the shop in question was required for their personal need as they want to put their eldest son in business in the said shop.
The appellant was requested to vacate the demised premises, but he refused to do the same, therefore, the ejectment application was filed.
3. The appellant filed his written statement in which he denied the personal bona fide need of the landlady and stated that the case was filed only with the object to enhance the rent. It is the case of the appellant that he is carrying on business in the premises and by passage of time the goodwill has increased. According to him the respondent's son Kamran is not jobless and is doing regular business in the premises on Plot No.7/64, D.M.C.H. Society Karachi, having been in possession of the two shops.
4- The respondent in support of her case examined her attorney and husband Ferozuddin. The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by the parties counsel. After conclusion of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application, holding that the respondent had succeeded in proving that she requires the demised premises for personal bona fide use of her son Kamran. He, therefore, allowed the ejectment application as stated above.
4-A. Mr. Rehmat Elahi, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Rent Controller has wrongly discarded the evidence of the appellant as he was recalled and reaffirmed and then cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent. According to him the ejectment application has been filed with mala fide intention as the respondent is interested in enhancing the rent and further that the husband of the respondent is already in possession of two shops. In the ejectment application it is mentioned that the applicant is jobless, but in evidence he has been shown working as salesman and further that the son of the respondent for whom the shop is required has not been produced before in the Court.
5.I have heard Mr. Rehmat Elahi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Khurshid Anwar Shaikh, leaned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the evidence of the parties.
6. The respondent in para. 4 of her ejectment application has stated that her eldest son Kamran is jobless and wandering for want of suitable business as they belong to "Punjabi Saudagaran" whose male members generally do their own business instead of service, therefore, the shop in question is required in good faith for the bona fide use and occupation of respondent's son. This plea has been supported by her husband namely, Ferozuddin in his affidavit-in---evidence and in cross- examination also nothing favourable to the appellant has come except that enhancement of rent was asked in the year 1988 by 10 % and that two shops are in possession of the respondent's husband where he is doing his business. This witness has, denied the allegations of the appellant that Kamran is doing regular business with him or that the shop in question is not required in good faith for the use of his jobless son. The appellant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal showing that the respondent's son is doing any independent business of his own. Even if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that he is working with his father in his shop then also it is every right of the respondent to get the shop in question for independent business of her major son, who intends to do his own business separately. The demand of enhancing the rent by the respondent would not disentitle her from getting the premises in question for personal bona fide need of her son as according to her husband he had asked for enhancement of rent by 10% from the tenant. In a case reported as Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman, (1980 SCM R 772), it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that: "...a demand of higher rent by itself does not cast any doubts about the personal bona fide requirements if the factum of bona fide requirements is independently proved. "
7. It is also not fatal to the case of the respondent if her son Kamran is not examined in the case as she has in her ejectment application on oath has stated that she requires the premises in question for her eldest son Kamran. This fact has been supported by her attorney and husband Ferozuddin in his affidavit-in---evidence filed in the Court of Rent Controller and no other supporting evidence has been produced by the tenant showing that the requirement is in bad faith, except his own oral words. It is well-settled law that once the landlord/landlady has stated on oath that the demised premises is required for her/his personal need and such statement is consistent with the case as disclosed in the ejectment application, in normal course, this statement should have to be accepted as correct unless some contrary evidence is produced by the tenant and under these circumstances the burden is shifted to the tenant to show that the landlady does not need the premises for her personal need. In the present case the appellant has failed to produce any evidence that the landlady does not require the demised premises for bona fide use of her eldest son. Keeping in view the evidence recorded in the Court of Rent Controller, Ihave come to this conclusion that the learned Rent Controller had rightly allowed the ejectment application on the ground of personal need of the respondent, therefore, the present appeal has got no force, which is accordingly dismissed.
These are the reasons for the Short order dated 30-5-1996 by which the appeal was dismissed.